Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad • Hacker News Board

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#431

Post by unclebucknasty » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #313

unclebucknasty wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to explain your reasoning. My point is predicated on my understanding your reasoning perfectly. And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of…

>> And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. Heard of the anthropic principle? >> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god…

>Heard of the anthropic principle?

Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :)

>sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do

There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it.

>I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs.

Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such.

>taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.

But, you can't prove that they are not equally valid or even that religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific evidence in many cases.

EDIT: You may find this interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl...

/EDIT

>Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too?

Philosophically? Maybe. But, that's not what we're talking about.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#432

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #425

dragontamer wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name an attack on the Western world in the last 30 years that didn't involve the Wahabist / Salafi extremist sect of Muslim? There's one sect kinda-sorta preaching violence. And that is the Wahhabi Islam that followed Osama Bin Laden. Beyond that, your mainstream Shiite / Shia Muslims are rather peaceful folk within the Western World. Frances 7%+ Muslim Population is a testament to that. Its pretty much those…

> Can you name an attack on the Western world in the last 30 years that didn't involve the Wahabist / Salafi extremist sect of Muslim? The first example that came to mind was the Unabomber - last attack was 1995, and he was explicitly opposing the technology-rich western world. A simple google search for "terrorist attacks not muslim" brought up: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/ "only 6% of terro…

I think he meant attacks on the Western world by Islamists not Wahabist/Salafi affiliated.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#433

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #431

Nursie wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. Heard of the anthropic principle? >> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god…

> Heard of the anthropic principle? Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :) > sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it. > I don't agree that tolerance is respecting…

> Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such.

"Treating them as such", maybe not; it certainly can include thinking that certain beliefs are insane. I'd say, in its best forms, it doesn't include dismissing out-of-hand everything from followers of a particular belief system because you believe some elements of that belief system are insane, though.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#434

Post by reitanqild » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #382

reitanqild wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction, less than a flag. Not every comment here is gold to be honest. They don't need to be eliminated but they should be grey as a signal to new readers. At least that is how I view the ones I receive. As has been pointed out by many sometimes it is hard to figure out why you have been downvoted. I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote. Also I ha…

> I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction Unfortunately, I just don't think people are generally that nuanced with it. But that may not be their fault, and instead may be in part due to what I mentioned previously: flags are for inappropriate content, comments should be for disagreement, so where does that leave downvoting? What is a "mild correction"? > I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment be…

- and, of course you received some anonymous downvotes, -have my upvote while we wait for dang and the rest of the team to come up with a good solution.

As for your question: What is a "mild correction"?

Here is my take on corrections in forums without private messages:

1. Polite follow up question along the lines of: "this doesn't sound right to me, do you have sources for x?"/"did you consider y?" etc - this is the least unoffensive method I know that can be applied without knowing the person you are replying to.

2. Polite explanation of why something is wrong - all while giving the poster a way out: "this is a common misconception ...". Combine with downvotes if necessary.

3. Downvote while pointing out the stupidity of the poster: "This is wrong for reasons x, y and z and you should know better. Check your facts next time." "HN has a long history of civilized discussion and this is not something I would expect to see here and I have downvoted you." "Posts like this makes you look like a tool" etc

4. Report/flag etc

Also: "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool."

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#435

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #213

unclebucknasty wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement. So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?

I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction, less than a flag. Not every comment here is gold to be honest. They don't need to be eliminated but they should be grey as a signal to new readers. At least that is how I view the ones I receive. As has been pointed out by many sometimes it is hard to figure out why you have been downvoted. I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote. Also I ha…

> I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote.

I'm not sure there is much to be gained from that, but if explanation is viewed as necessary I'd prefer a comment attached to the downvote that is hidden from the main discussion but visible on a link from the title line of the downvoted comment (with a link title like "5 downvotes"), so that downvotes don't increase the screen real-estate associated with the downvoted comment and its associated subthread in "normal" view, but the rationale for any downvotes is kept.

I think requiring normal comments associated with downvotes, and thus increasing the prominence of downvoted comments, is directly contrary to the whole purpose of community moderation.

But, in any case, I don't really see a problem with the impact of downvotes under the current system that warrants the increase in downvoting cost that requiring comment would involve.

> Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months.

I think the culture is continuously evolving (both from the ground up and from the admin side), but I don't see anything particularly surprising recently. I occasionally see a few downvotes that seem unwarranted -- either on my own comments or others where that's evident by graying -- but they tend to get neutralized by upvotes over a little time, and that's pretty much not a change from the past.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#436

Post by filoeleven » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 7:20 PM UTC

kbart wrote: post #303

_nedR wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beg your pardon. I find the exact opposite as true. People today, are generally careful and sensitive about what they say about Jews or black people, because they don't want to be labelled as anti-semitic or racist. Muslims seems to be the only minority you can criticize and be politically correct. Consider the following statement : "Maybe most Jews are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing zio…

Exactly. Glenn Greenwald posted a great article on Intercept about this topic yesterday. Worth reading.

I was going to respond with the same thing. Since you beat me to it, here's the link: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-cha...

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#437

Post by filoeleven » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 7:21 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #71

Yesterday the Guardian published the best opinion I've read so far about satire, Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist attacks and our reaction to them. And it's a short comic strip by the cartoonist Joe Sacco: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/...

The Intercept also posted a similar piece, in article form: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-cha...

An excerpt: But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#438

Post by kartman » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 7:38 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #334

kristofferR wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone have actually said basically what you just said. In episode "201" (S14E06) all the celebrities South Park has parodied over the years collectively sued South Park town for making fun of them. The town would be ruined by the lawsuit, and beg for the celebs to drop the lawsuit. They agree to drop the lawsuit for just one thing - if the city could give them Muhammed. The celebs had developed a…

Super Best Friends is particularly interesting. It's only about 14 years ago that it was broadcast and at the time nobody made a big deal out of it.

and if i recall correct, the first few seasons opening sequence song has mohammad and super best friends - so the image is in every episode of those seasons.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#439

Post by unclebucknasty » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 7:49 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #418

unclebucknasty wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Well, we're going a little too deep in mixing trivial examples with significant real-world issues, which I think, beyond a certain point, just gets us off track. Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evide…

> Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. [...] Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence. No. There is no compelling evidence; there is even less scientific evidence (if you believe the contrary, please present it). And I don't need evid…

Btw, you may find this interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl...

It's behind a partial paywall. You may need to Google the title and link to it from there.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#440

Post by soylentcola » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 7:49 PM UTC

resonantcore wrote: post #197

kristofferR wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone have actually said basically what you just said. In episode "201" (S14E06) all the celebrities South Park has parodied over the years collectively sued South Park town for making fun of them. The town would be ruined by the lawsuit, and beg for the celebs to drop the lawsuit. They agree to drop the lawsuit for just one thing - if the city could give them Muhammed. The celebs had developed a…

> Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history. That's bizarre. A quick Google search led me to the full episode here: http://pollystreaming.com/South-Park-Season-5-Episode-3-Supe... I'm not sure if this is due to the Streissand Effect.

But isn't that just a pirate 'tube site? Same idea. I think the previous poster just meant that you won't find it on any of the DVDs, digital sales, or official streams.